Table 1 and Figure 1 contain vector–disease assignments that appear biologically incorrect. RVFV is primarily mosquito-borne (Aedes/Culex), not vectored by Hyalomma; KFDV is mainly transmitted by Haemaphysalis spinigera, not Hyalomma anatolicum/marginatum. What evidence supports these tick–pathogen pairs, and will the table/figure be corrected?
The Brazil loss estimate is off by two orders of magnitude. The text states Rhipicephalus microplus causes USD 32.4 million in annual losses in Brazil, citing Grisi et al. (2014), but that paper reports approximately USD 3.24 billion. Please verify and correct this discrepancy.
Figure 1B’s scope and terminology are problematic. It includes Nearctic ticks such as Amblyomma americanum and Ixodes scapularis in a Global South figure, calls vertebrates intermediate hosts rather than reservoirs/amplifying hosts, and contains errors such as Karo paralysis and erlichiosis. What is the rationale for these inclusions, and will the terminology be corrected?
The Global South framing is not matched by the evidence base. Table 1, Figure 1, and the regional case studies largely omit Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania, despite the title and definition. In addition, ref. 55 (Lyme disease economic burden) lists the same authors as ref. 54 (Uganda TBD review), and refs. 15–16 are local Egyptian studies used to support a global count of 116 tick species. Please clarify the literature-search strategy and correct the citations.
